Dating site ChristianMingle settles discrimination lawsuit. Now LGBT will be allowed to list. (Rastafarian, verse)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not having needed a computer site to help me find a woman is a negative ? BTW, I merely went by your claim of how CM works now .
Not at all. One stereotypical complaint made by people who use or have used online dating sites is that they get messages from those who don't at all fit what they state they are looking for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
body told the gays they couldn't use CM . You just dont get this . What the gays found was that the site didn't offer the service they wanted .
Again , learn the difference . Your claims are petty . If you wish to disagree with me, try reading what mordant and the guy she references wrote . BTW , did you even bother to go and read his blog ? He hits the nail on the head , INCLUDING what I said at the beginning , that much of the joy here is that "those Christians" got screwed again . So yes, even atheists see the joy some get from payback .
The claims against CM were bogus , even a militant atheist sees they were bogus , and you are naive to buy into the nonsense .
Hey, whatever lets you sleep at night, buddy. Regards.
They don't want to sell...what? Subscriptions to their site? That is the only service they offer.
That is HOW they market their product...not WHAT the product is.
Amazons' product is not their interweb presence...it is the goods and services sold throught it.
Where you are messing up, is erroneously thinking that "discrimination" is a term predicated on criminality...that an act must be "against the law" in the jurisdiction where it occurrs to be designated such.
Like "murder". All "murder" is "killing"...but not all "killing" is "murder". "Murder" denotes killing that is criminal in nature. The term is a "legal" reference.
Here, check this out: Discrimination | Definition of Discrimination by Merriam-Webster
Notice...the Law, opinions of lawyers, and criminality has NOTHING to do with it...let alone, as you say, is the whole basis.
Legal or illegal...if an act fits that definition...it is "real" discrimination.
Enslaving people is ALWAYS discriminatory, but has (unfortunately) not always necessarily been criminal.
No you are using morality as your judge--and so is Merriam-Webster. But you cannot claim anyone or anything is discriminatory unless you can correct that practice legally.
I was in the insurance business for years and years, starting with Travelers in the early seventies. Insurance companies legally "discriminate" (not called that of course--its called selectivism) for many reasons. Some of the ways that were acceptable in terms of selectivism would shock people. We didn't insure red sports cars at any price (and many sports cars like Corvettes whether or not they were red. Red was considered a color that attracted the attention of police officers and those who drove such cars were suspected of getting more moving violations (a sure sign of greater accident potential). There was no scientific evidence for it and eventually the industry determined it was UNFAIRLY discriminatory. That is the real issue. Insurance companies have a right to discriminate but not to UNFAIRLY discriminate.
We had solid empirical data that a recently divorced individual (in the first year) was six percent more likely to be involved in an automobile accident than someone who was not recently divorced. And we used to price them into an auto track where they paid more money. But divorced individuals began to complain--and then insurance departments began questioning whether it was UNFAIRLY discriminatory to pick on a few divorced people instead of all. In other words they were requiring us to lump all divorcees into a single group which then brought the accident rate of the group more in line with the accident rate of all people. Travelers dropped the practice as legally it was becoming more difficult to get it passed insurance departments.
What do insurance departments have going for them? Lawyers--usually lots of them, although practice in recent years may involve hiring outside firms. But there is no law on the books that would prevent, even today, insurance companies from refusing to insure red cars.
What you or anyone else thinks is discriminatory is a pile of bovine excrement without the force of law behind it. The government we have doesn't think in terms of morality, although it may position itself behind some ideas more than others--that's what has happened with the LGBTQ community. The government has aligned itself on what many THINK is a moral issue. But the government is interested in whether PRACTICE is unfairly discriminatory.
What ChristianMingle has done has been "discriminatory" and nothing necessarily wrong with it--except LAWYERS have determined it is an UNFAIR PRACTICE.
So "discrimination" has a ring of unfairness to just about everyone. But LAWYERS determine what is unfairly discriminatory. You don't get to do that, and neither do I.
No you are using morality as your judge--and so is Merriam-Webster. But you cannot claim anyone or anything is discriminatory unless you can correct that practice legally.
I was in the insurance business for years and years, starting with Travelers in the early seventies. Insurance companies legally "discriminate" (not called that of course--its called selectivism) for many reasons. Some of the ways that were acceptable in terms of selectivism would shock people. We didn't insure red sports cars at any price (and many sports cars like Corvettes whether or not they were red. Red was considered a color that attracted the attention of police officers and those who drove such cars were suspected of getting more moving violations (a sure sign of greater accident potential). There was no scientific evidence for it and eventually the industry determined it was UNFAIRLY discriminatory. That is the real issue. Insurance companies have a right to discriminate but not to UNFAIRLY discriminate.
We had solid empirical data that a recently divorced individual (in the first year) was six percent more likely to be involved in an automobile accident than someone who was not recently divorced. And we used to price them into an auto track where they paid more money. But divorced individuals began to complain--and then insurance departments began questioning whether it was UNFAIRLY discriminatory to pick on a few divorced people instead of all. In other words they were requiring us to lump all divorcees into a single group which then brought the accident rate of the group more in line with the accident rate of all people. Travelers dropped the practice as legally it was becoming more difficult to get it passed insurance departments.
What do insurance departments have going for them? Lawyers--usually lots of them, although practice in recent years may involve hiring outside firms. But there is no law on the books that would prevent, even today, insurance companies from refusing to insure red cars.
What you or anyone else thinks is discriminatory is a pile of bovine excrement without the force of law behind it. The government we have doesn't think in terms of morality, although it may position itself behind some ideas more than others--that's what has happened with the LGBTQ community. The government has aligned itself on what many THINK is a moral issue. But the government is interested in whether PRACTICE is unfairly discriminatory.
What ChristianMingle has done has been "discriminatory" and nothing necessarily wrong with it--except LAWYERS have determined it is an UNFAIR PRACTICE.
So "discrimination" has a ring of unfairness to just about everyone. But LAWYERS determine what is unfairly discriminatory. You don't get to do that, and neither do I.
Your examples of the insurance biz illustrates the facts.
If it meets the definition of "discrimination", then it is "real" discrimination.
"The Law" determines nothing but the criminality of that, or anything else.
Whether it is or isn't legal, whether there will or won't be penalites or punisment, has NOTHING to do with it being "Real Discrimination". That is based upon definition, and definition ONLY.
What this obsession you have with lawyers, and the law, is...and why you would ever think they determine anything beyond what is legal in a particular jurisdiction...I have no idea.
They define nothing but the legality of an act...not the act itself.
And cut it out with the "bovine excrement" dumbstuff you keep putting in your posts...it adds nothing to the debate but exactly that.
every single time I read about decisions like this I think New York should have executed every single rioter, because they will execute us for our mistake!
LAWYERS determine what is unfairly discriminatory. You don't get to do that, and neither do I.
You are simply pointing out that legality and moral rightness and perceptions of moral rightness all vary independently AND have a huge subjective component.
I think this discussion is about what is "right", not what is legal. If enough people believe that the law is not right then we can work to change that. Just as if enough people think owning a red car is not something that should require people to pay more $$ to insurers, they can work to change THAT.
I think your years in the insurance industry have skewed your thinking on this such that you are willing to accept random edicts from Claims Denial Departments run by empty suits as the final word on anything. There is nothing set in stone or inevitable about any law or policy, or indeed about any moral consensus. The very debate in this thread is simply moral forces at work.
I always enjoy it when we get the "If you are allowed to fine me for speeding, how long will it be before we are being dragged off to the gas chambers?' arguments. It is of course the slippery slope fallacy.
let's drop the slippery slope argument
This is the most immoral decision this country ever had!
The American revolution started for less reasons than this
the slippery slope was when Illinois foolishly decriminalized homosexual behavior back in the 60's, leading it down a slippery slope that has America has turned into the evil empire!
forcing perversion of the worst order on people is extreme evil!
And how do their membership numbers compare with the site in question?
And perhaps more interestingly, does the fact that there is one grocery store in town which lets black people shop there get the others off the hook for discriminating against minorities? Would someone complaining about that situation just do so to be causing trouble?
So your stance is that these two guys should be able to sue because the actual gay dating sites might not have enough members to suit the gay guys, so let's force the more popular heterosexual sites to host gay dating to increase the selection for the gay men ? Really ? The quantity of members is now something we are going to legislate ?
Do you have any case law showing that businesses can discriminate as long as there are other businesses which don't?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always enjoy it when we get the "If you are allowed to fine me for speeding, how long will it be before we are being dragged off to the gas chambers?' arguments. It is of course the slippery slope fallacy.
